US District Judge William Alsup, who oversaw the Oracle v. Google lawsuit, is concerned that paid bloggers or other types of writers may have influenced the court—and he wants Google to try a little harder to come up with a list of any writers it may have paid.

Google produced a general list of "types" of people and organizations that get money from the search giant and would have been in a position to comment on the case if they chose to. That list includes universities, specific grant recipients, Google employees, and even bloggers who participate in Google's advertising program. However, "neither Google nor its counsel has paid any individuals or organizations within those categories to report or comment on any issues in this case," the search giant wrote in a court document filed Friday.

That isn't good enough for Alsup, who wrote that as it stands, Google hasn't complied with his order. Oracle did comply, in Alsup's view, by disclosing that it had paid one blogger: Florian Mueller, a self-styled patent expert frequently quoted in the press. Mueller disclosed the relationship himself in April, albeit at the end of a long blog post. Oracle says it never paid Mueller to write blog posts about the case.

And it's not a small thing, in the judge's view. "Just as a treatise on the law may influence the courts, public commentary that purports to be independent may have an influence on the courts and/or their staff if only in subtle ways," opines Alsup in today's order [PDF]. "If a treatise author or blogger is paid by a litigant, should not that relationship be known?"

In its response, Oracle lawyers not only disclosed paid blogger Mueller, they also happily took a shot at Google's claims of transparency. They argue that it's Google, not Oracle, who pays a shadowy "network of influencers" including trade organization CCIA.

Alsup doesn't seem to have bought into any conspiracy theories yet, but he would like Google to give the list-making a better shot. Consultants and employees who commented on the trial count; universities, big organizations, and bloggers who just use Google advertising software clearly don't, he said. "Oracle managed to do it," he noted.

So, if Google isn't paying any bloggers (as their submission said) to comment on the case, how can the judge expect them to comply with his order to reveal the bloggers they're paying?

That was my thought. I'm not sure how Google should respond; a full listing of individuals and consortiums that receive financial compensation does not equate to a full listing of individuals and consortiums that have written in support of Google as pertains to the trial, which could put them in violation of contracts with those individuals and consortiums.

I'm trying to figure out how Google is being "vague". There statement pretty much speaks for itself: We did not pay anyone specifically in this case, but people commenting may have received money for unrelated reasons (grants, advertising, etc), and may have incentives to be biased towards us.

The only reason I can see for the judge doing this and seemingly not believing Google is that he some sort of tip that Google paid someone off. He pretty much just told Google that he didn't believe them.

So, if Google isn't paying any bloggers (as their submission said) to comment on the case, how can the judge expect them to comply with his order to reveal the bloggers they're paying?

This is really a case of the judge saying "Really, none? Why don't you go back and make sure. Just in case. Because, if you say "none", and later on it turns out there was one or more, I'm gonna put you in a world of hurt."

I'm trying to figure out how Google is being "vague". There statement pretty much speaks for itself: We did not pay anyone specifically in this case, but people commenting may have received money for unrelated reasons (grants, advertising, etc), and may have incentives to be biased towards us.

Yeah, I think he just wants those names on public record. It sounds like they're trying to skirt around the edges all mafia like. "We didn't order the hit. We just said, 'Get the job done'".

IANAL, but I can't see any merit in Judge Alsup's line of reasoning for demanding this information from Google and Oracle. "This court" would really consist of himself and the jury, wouldn't it? And if any of the jury members had a conflict of interest that they failed to disclose, *they* would be the ones in contempt, or at least responsible for giving Oracle some useful appeal material, right? If it wasn't the jury, then Judge Alsup should disclose whether he himself is paid by one of the two...

...which I'm pretty certain he isn't, unless he is and he's just doing this to create some kind of grand drama that he can later sell a book about. Beyond that, the argument that the court could be "influenced" by a paid shill is ridiculous. The judge's responsibility is to administer the law during the trial. The jury's responsibility is to put aside their prior experiences in the media and to compare the trial evidence and testimony against the law as given them by the judge. If either one were to consider the media during any portion of this, they've essentially violated that trust themselves, regardless of whether the media they considered was paid for by one of the parties to the lawsuit. All that would be accomplished by demanding that the parties disclose paid shills would be a moral shifting of the blame that is itself fraught with questionable rationality.

So, if Google isn't paying any bloggers (as their submission said) to comment on the case, how can the judge expect them to comply with his order to reveal the bloggers they're paying?

If you read the article, you'll note that Oracle also denied paying Mueller for his commentary, stating only that they had a financial relationship with him for other things (I think they've said they paid him as a consultant) and that he commented frequently on the case.

The judge is simply asking Google to do the same. The question is not, "Who did you pay to shill for you?" The question is, "Who do you have a significant financial relationship with that commented frequently and publicly on this case?" It doesn't seem so complicated to me.

Edit: I wanted to add a quick example. Let's say, for instance (and I'm really, REALLY not implying that this is true, I'm just using an example of another high profile blog), PJ from Groklaw were being paid to consult for Google on some unrelated matter. That would be relevant. That's the kind of information the judge would want.

In what way did Oracle "manage to do it"? They listed one shill who was already publicly known, and then provided even less information than Google beyond that. I seriously doubt that they listed all "consultants and employees who commented on the trial", as Alsup has now clarified that Google should.

I'm trying to figure out how Google is being "vague". There statement pretty much speaks for itself: We did not pay anyone specifically in this case, but people commenting may have received money for unrelated reasons (grants, advertising, etc), and may have incentives to be biased towards us.

Yeah, I think he just wants those names on public record. It sounds like they're trying to skirt around the edges all mafia like. "We didn't order the hit. We just said, 'Get the job done'".

You'll have to take off your tinfoil hat and start explaining your paranoia to me, because I don't get it.

Google gives out millions in grants, funding and advertising every year, as part of regular business operations. Their statement essentially says "We give out money regardless of Oracle, but that probably influences public opinion of us".

Yes and when Oracle decided to pay blogger(s?) to subtly argue their case on their behalf, the CEO said "Go now, my Oracle-lings, and find me one, but JUST one, web-logger who may wish to partake in our riches in exchange for his journalistic integrity. Muahahaa" (The laugh may have been different though).

So Google, who would seem to be so large that they would be beyond such small time PR campaigns, is now being accused of lying because they didn't do something sneaky like Oracle did?

I mean I'm glad the judge is taking the issue this seriously (there should definitely be lines for this sort of thing) but realistically, this practice is likely something that does (or at the very least COULD) be going on in dozens of industries by hundreds of companies and thousands of journalists and writers. Proving anything is near impossible unless the writers themselves come out and say they are writing something because someone paid them to present it in that way. Mere financial ties can be explained away in dozens of different ways. Motives are what count.

Couple thousand names, no problem. Let's see Oracle and the judge cross reference everyone on that list. Oh, and Google should also add in a little passive aggressiveness of "This is everyone who's received money from us. Odd that Oracle, who has themselves a massive information technology footprint, only pays one person..."

I'm trying to figure out how Google is being "vague". There statement pretty much speaks for itself: We did not pay anyone specifically in this case, but people commenting may have received money for unrelated reasons (grants, advertising, etc), and may have incentives to be biased towards us.

Yeah, I think he just wants those names on public record. It sounds like they're trying to skirt around the edges all mafia like. "We didn't order the hit. We just said, 'Get the job done'".

You'll have to take off your tinfoil hat and start explaining your paranoia to me, because I don't get it.

Google gives out millions in grants, funding and advertising every year, as part of regular business operations. Their statement essentially says "We give out money regardless of Oracle, but that probably influences public opinion of us".

Google's been "caught" before paying bloggers to write articles for them. See the Chrome hit they took earlier this year where they punished themselves, not for paying people to write about Chrome, but for using the links created by it to increase Chrome's pagerank. I get a weekly email from a big tech news company explaining to me why I should use GoogleDocs which says (in very tiny letters) at the very bottom "Paid for by Google". It happens in print magazines too. There's nothing illegal about it. But knowing that it happens is helpful if you want to not look like an idiot.

My tinfoil hat has nothing to do with this though. Even the disclosure Oracle made here wasn't for a blogger that they paid to write about this case. It was for a blogger they paid who happened to be a patent expert and happened to write about the patent case Oracle was involved in. I wouldn't be even slightly surprised to learn Google did the exact same thing. I have no idea why people are happy to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I have no idea if the judge can actually do anything to force them to disclose that either though.

So, if Google isn't paying any bloggers (as their submission said) to comment on the case, how can the judge expect them to comply with his order to reveal the bloggers they're paying?

If you read the article, you'll note that Oracle also denied paying Mueller for his commentary, stating only that they had a financial relationship with him for other things (I think they've said they paid him as a consultant) and that he commented frequently on the case.

The judge is simply asking Google to do the same. The question is not, "Who did you pay to shill for you?" The question is, "Who do you have a significant financial relationship with that commented frequently and publicly on this case?" It doesn't seem so complicated to me.

Edit: I wanted to add a quick example. Let's say, for instance (and I'm really, REALLY not implying that this is true, I'm just using an example of another high profile blog), PJ from Groklaw were being paid to consult for Google on some unrelated matter. That would be relevant. That's the kind of information the judge would want.

What you seem to miss is that Google supplied a list of organizations and whatnot to which they supplied funds, but not individuals of those organizations who wrote about Google products.

The judge is saying "I want a list of everyone who wrote about Google and might have recieved Google funding". So, if I worked for some blog that Google paid at some point, then wrote an article that was pro-Google, Alsup wants me on a list. Even though Google did not pay me or my employer for a positive blog, and may not institutionally be aware of the connection.

Especially as Google funds a lot of different organizations, this is a daunting task even for the king gorilla of searching, as they may have to search several degrees of relationship

Let's say that Joe Mullin wrote a pro-Google article about the trial. And, further, Google funded Conde-Nast for some reason. Google might be expected to follow the money trail from C-N, through all of the subsidieries of C-N, through all of the individual contributors of those subsidieries, ID the article by Joe, and report it. And what about if Joe didn't write an article that was pro-Google, but a forum post? How does that count?

I think Google really took the most reasonable response to the request.

Google's been "caught" before paying bloggers to write articles for them. See the Chrome hit they took earlier this year where they punished themselves, not for paying people to write about Chrome, but for using the links created by it to increase Chrome's pagerank. I get a weekly email from a big tech news company explaining to me why I should use GoogleDocs which says (in very tiny letters) at the very bottom "Paid for by Google". It happens in print magazines too. There's nothing illegal about it. But knowing that it happens is helpful if you want to not look like an idiot.

My tinfoil hat has nothing to do with this though. Even the disclosure Oracle made here wasn't for a blogger that they paid to write about this case. It was for a blogger they paid who happened to be a patent expert and happened to write about the patent case Oracle was involved in. I wouldn't be even slightly surprised to learn Google did the exact same thing. I have no idea why people are happy to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I have no idea if the judge can actually do anything to force them to disclose that either though.

It's not the benefit of the doubt. It's you talking about some wacky "mafia tactics" or something. Hence the tinfoil hat, because somehow you jump straight into vaguely "ordering hits".

I said it already. Google gives out a lot of money. That influences a lot of people's opinions. There is absolutely no doubt that people will be biased to Google because they get big ad dollars.

But failing to disclose every blogger on Google's ad services is not "sneaky".

Especially as Google funds a lot of different organizations, this is a daunting task even for the king gorilla of searching, as they may have to search several degrees of relationship

Let's say that Joe Mullin wrote a pro-Google article about the trial. And, further, Google funded Conde-Nast for some reason. Google might be expected to follow the money trail from C-N, through all of the subsidieries of C-N, through all of the individual contributors of those subsidieries, ID the article by Joe, and report it. And what about if Joe didn't write an article that was pro-Google, but a forum post? How does that count?

I think Google really took the most reasonable response to the request.

Google isn't providing it's entire customer list of people that have ever written about google, it's taking the list of people it used or referred to in court and seeing if they get paid by google in some way. I don't know what the reasonable level of expectation for identify is, since it's easy to see if someone is getting paid directly, but then if they get paid through their one employee business(+/- 100 shell companies) it isn't obviously directly paying them, yet it actually is. Going though a real corporate chain is different than a blogger that just happens to get paid as a "consultant" for google, there's an understood bias in a person representing a company vs a person representing solely their self.

... It was for a blogger they paid who happened to be a patent expert and happened to write about the patent case Oracle was involved in. I wouldn't be even slightly surprised to learn Google did the exact same thing. I have no idea why people are happy to give them the benefit of the doubt.

...

Let's get one thing perfectly clear,... Florian Mueller is not, has not been, and in all probability never will be a patent "expert." He has no law degree, and his level of "expertise" in patents is all about blogging about them and maybe having pursued getting one of his own once...

If that's the standard, I'm a "parenting expert," ... more so, because I actually HAVE a daughter (and I don't think Mueller actually has a patent on anything,... and unlike Mueller, I also possess a law degree, not that it would mean anything as far as being a parenting expert,... I'm just saying... "he don't").

So, if Google isn't paying any bloggers (as their submission said) to comment on the case, how can the judge expect them to comply with his order to reveal the bloggers they're paying?

Perhaps it's because the judge didn't find their response remotely credible? And did the judge ask them to list bloggers they are paying to write about the case or did he ask them to list people they are paying or have paid (be it financial or gifted support/software) that are also writing about the case. I haven't followed the judge's request but if it is the latter then Google's response really is not credible.

Google's been "caught" before paying bloggers to write articles for them. See the Chrome hit they took earlier this year where they punished themselves, not for paying people to write about Chrome, but for using the links created by it to increase Chrome's pagerank. I get a weekly email from a big tech news company explaining to me why I should use GoogleDocs which says (in very tiny letters) at the very bottom "Paid for by Google". It happens in print magazines too. There's nothing illegal about it. But knowing that it happens is helpful if you want to not look like an idiot.

My tinfoil hat has nothing to do with this though. Even the disclosure Oracle made here wasn't for a blogger that they paid to write about this case. It was for a blogger they paid who happened to be a patent expert and happened to write about the patent case Oracle was involved in. I wouldn't be even slightly surprised to learn Google did the exact same thing. I have no idea why people are happy to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I have no idea if the judge can actually do anything to force them to disclose that either though.

It's not the benefit of the doubt. It's you talking about some wacky "mafia tactics" or something. Hence the tinfoil hat, because somehow you jump straight into vaguely "ordering hits".

I said it already. Google gives out a lot of money. That influences a lot of people's opinions. There is absolutely no doubt that people will be biased to Google because they get big ad dollars.

But failing to disclose every blogger on Google's ad services is not "sneaky".

Not to mention that the deal with Chrome was due to a subcontractor. Once something is contracted out, it gets a lot harder for the company paying the contractor to find out what that money is doing. In other words, I don't see how this court order could possibly turn up something like. Perhaps the contractor itself, assuming Google knew that's what the company was doing.

I get a weekly email from a big tech news company explaining to me why I should use GoogleDocs which says (in very tiny letters) at the very bottom "Paid for by Google". It happens in print magazines too.

From a lawyer's point of view, Google's answer was the proper risk-adverse thing to do. Judge Alsup's order could be read to be really broad and vague itself. Google provided an answer (that they knew the judge would probably find insufficient) to show they are trying to meet the order but are seeking clarity. It's a safer play than submitting (potentially) thousands of names which would (1) inundate the court with a lot of noise compared to signal, (2) likely identify people who don't believe they are paid by Google directly/significantly, and (3) give Oracle unwarranted PR ammunition. Now, they have more guidance, and can tailor a more meaningful reply.

Oracle named a name that everyone already knew and gave up nothing substantively more than what Google did aside from that one shill. I'll be interested to see if they amend their reply to add more names.

Judge Alsup really said, "Do better" to both sides - give it time to play out.

And that relates to this article about paying people who may have a media position to influence opinion how?Rubbish on rubbish thus far...

Oracle can name a single blogger who they have financial relations to, who has blogged about this case, because...that's a single blogger.

Google pays money to thousands of bloggers on thousands of websites, many of which will talk about tech matters.

Are you really this obtuse?

This answers nothing, the original post you chimed in on with nothing to add said

Quote:

Oracle managed it because their participation in the public sphere is many orders of magnitude less than Google's.

I asked for data/evidence to support this, you and they have supplied essential nothing.You're argument is along the lines of, I think google have more paid media influence because google pay more people to influence the media. You support this with pretty much nothing except a tautological argument. Do you know how to define rubbish?

Couple thousand names, no problem. Let's see Oracle and the judge cross reference everyone on that list. Oh, and Google should also add in a little passive aggressiveness of "This is everyone who's received money from us. Odd that Oracle, who has themselves a massive information technology footprint, only pays one person..."

This is kind of what I am thinking. List every single individual that Google has a financial relationship with and make it thousands of pages if necessary. Both companies pay people to perform various functions whether through grants, donations, ad revenue or whatever and most will talk about them in some fashion. Whether there is a direct financial relationship is another matter. Also whether they were actually paid to say specific things.

Seems like a very shaky request to me, and I am not sure how I would reply either.

... It was for a blogger they paid who happened to be a patent expert and happened to write about the patent case Oracle was involved in. I wouldn't be even slightly surprised to learn Google did the exact same thing. I have no idea why people are happy to give them the benefit of the doubt.

...

Let's get one thing perfectly clear,... Florian Mueller is not, has not been, and in all probability never will be a patent "expert." He has no law degree, and his level of "expertise" in patents is all about blogging about them and maybe having pursued getting one of his own once...

If that's the standard, I'm a "parenting expert," ... more so, because I actually HAVE a daughter (and I don't think Mueller actually has a patent on anything,... and unlike Mueller, I also possess a law degree, not that it would mean anything as far as being a parenting expert,... I'm just saying... "he don't").

So, if Google isn't paying any bloggers (as their submission said) to comment on the case, how can the judge expect them to comply with his order to reveal the bloggers they're paying?

He also states that he wants to see the list of people that commented on the case and have financial ties with Google. Because even unrelated financial ties can have an impact on objectivity. (As the case with Mueller)

Google's been "caught" before paying bloggers to write articles for them. See the Chrome hit they took earlier this year where they punished themselves, not for paying people to write about Chrome, but for using the links created by it to increase Chrome's pagerank. I get a weekly email from a big tech news company explaining to me why I should use GoogleDocs which says (in very tiny letters) at the very bottom "Paid for by Google". It happens in print magazines too. There's nothing illegal about it. But knowing that it happens is helpful if you want to not look like an idiot.

My tinfoil hat has nothing to do with this though. Even the disclosure Oracle made here wasn't for a blogger that they paid to write about this case. It was for a blogger they paid who happened to be a patent expert and happened to write about the patent case Oracle was involved in. I wouldn't be even slightly surprised to learn Google did the exact same thing. I have no idea why people are happy to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I have no idea if the judge can actually do anything to force them to disclose that either though.

You are referring to advertisement "articles", success stories and white papers. They have not been caught for that, because it's quite obvious who commissions them.These are not the same as opinions on the case. What Alsup is most interested in. The point of this exercise is to out the lawyers and other influencers that have ties to both companies and have had published opinions on the case.

I suspect that Alsup is doing this because "one blogger" dared to criticise the jury and the judge.

I bet Google will have a list, but the most vocal people will not be on it(ex. Groklaw, EFF). Unlike in Oracle's case.

So, if Google isn't paying any bloggers (as their submission said) to comment on the case, how can the judge expect them to comply with his order to reveal the bloggers they're paying?

If you read the article, you'll note that Oracle also denied paying Mueller for his commentary, stating only that they had a financial relationship with him for other things (I think they've said they paid him as a consultant) and that he commented frequently on the case.

The judge is simply asking Google to do the same. The question is not, "Who did you pay to shill for you?" The question is, "Who do you have a significant financial relationship with that commented frequently and publicly on this case?" It doesn't seem so complicated to me.

Edit: I wanted to add a quick example. Let's say, for instance (and I'm really, REALLY not implying that this is true, I'm just using an example of another high profile blog), PJ from Groklaw were being paid to consult for Google on some unrelated matter. That would be relevant. That's the kind of information the judge would want.

What you seem to miss is that Google supplied a list of organizations and whatnot to which they supplied funds, but not individuals of those organizations who wrote about Google products.

The judge is saying "I want a list of everyone who wrote about Google and might have recieved Google funding". So, if I worked for some blog that Google paid at some point, then wrote an article that was pro-Google, Alsup wants me on a list. Even though Google did not pay me or my employer for a positive blog, and may not institutionally be aware of the connection.

Especially as Google funds a lot of different organizations, this is a daunting task even for the king gorilla of searching, as they may have to search several degrees of relationship

Let's say that Joe Mullin wrote a pro-Google article about the trial. And, further, Google funded Conde-Nast for some reason. Google might be expected to follow the money trail from C-N, through all of the subsidieries of C-N, through all of the individual contributors of those subsidieries, ID the article by Joe, and report it. And what about if Joe didn't write an article that was pro-Google, but a forum post? How does that count?

I think Google really took the most reasonable response to the request.

To be clear, I never said the request wasn't unreasonable, just that it was clear what the judge actually wanted. You seem to agree with me, but be arguing that the request could not be fulfilled easily and so Google should be forgiven for not doing so.

I'm not saying Google is right or wrong, I am saying that Google chose to not fully respond to a rather easy to understand, if not to abide by, judicial request.

And that relates to this article about paying people who may have a media position to influence opinion how?Rubbish on rubbish thus far...

Stop trying to play the superior by pretending you don't know the truth.I ask you this stewski, how many ad campaigns does Oracle run to which literally anyone in the world may sign-up to and benefit from? Of those campaigns, how many people are signed up and benefiting?

This article was never about bloggers who may influence media, but rather about the fact that WE ARE the media, that every single person in the world who has a connection to the internet has a potential to be a media source, and there for to influence the opinions of others with what they say, regardless of whether it is professed as opinion or as knowledge.

Until this case, the last major reason for Oracle being in the news was in 2009 when it started to take over Java.

Since then I have seen the occasional reference to Oracle in Java related articles, some to say "not the direction Sun would have gone." some to say "They really haven't done all the terrible things we thought they would."

But that is essentially it in the bulk of the public eye. I realize if you read business journals your personal point of view may vary on how often Oracle is spoken about in "the media" Regardless of how you define "media". Obviously bloggers are not part of what's considered traditional media, and yet here we are in 2012, with self-made bloggers with little more than a laptop and a word-press page being invited to major events, given VIP treatment at conventions of all shapes and sizes, and this is what the Judge recognizes.

The problem is as so clearly cut in the article above, that Oracle is capable of saying "Yeah, here is one person who we think has something to say about our case that we have paid in the past. They are a patent blogger."

If Google were to even keep track of everyone it paid directly or indirectly whether through an ad campaign, or through their hack-google campaign (Find a bug in chrome, report it, make money, they've already paid out millions a few-hundred to a thousand dollars at a time.) Members of universities they have donated to, charities, grants they have funded, the Google summer of code contests. The list carries on and on and on. Google gives money away like it's raining <expletive> dollar bills.

Any single given one of whom has either blogged about it, made a forum post, been spoken to by various members of the traditional media. Not a day goes by where I don't read about Google's involvement in the world. From Front-door fiberoptic access in Kansas, and yes I'd blog for Google's benefit if they gave me a gigabit pipe to the internet, you had better believe it. To their research into cellular industry on all levels including the allusion to a plan to roll-out their own cell coverage areas. To their mega-giant-super-massive search engine, and the daily ways it's changing. Go read-up on how to do SEO using Google now, it's totally different from a year ago, some of the old tricks will even cost you ranking. Or how about the self-driving cars in Arizona?

Google is a massive media-machine that aggregate media of all kinds, but that's not all it is. It's a huge research facility, a think-tank, a whole gaggle of innovators. The number of lives it touches fiscally directly or indirectly is nigh-on incalculable.

So how DARE YOU? How dare you hide behind a thin veil of superiority challenging others to aggregate all of the information that the Judge is asking for when you know full well that no one man has the computing power to do so.

But if I must give you some number of meaning I shall, I will perform two GOOGLE.COM searches, I will not use any special commands, I will not exclude any results, I will not use quotations or site references; and I shall provide you the total number of hits provided in a timely manner by said Google search.

I remind you to note that both of these words have other meanings, and places where they appear, and that the first search term, historically, is far more unique than the second search term which while being less unique, results in few hits.

So stewskie, I challenge you to simply count to that number, Thirteen-BILLION Eight-hundred fifty MILLION. Starting at ZERO, count, and when you have reached the designated number, then you may reply.

And by that time I hope you have earned some valuable insight to just how monstrously large Google really is, and how much influence it truly has on the world. Further, I implore you to make a special note in your mind as your pass what will be a seemingly paltry number of Three-hundred MILLION, so that you may know just how much that number pales in comparison to Google.

And when you come back, I will perform a new search, that is specifically designed to thwart literary references, and only accepts the capitalized forms of the words used as proper nouns.

You sicken me.

Addition:

I am not trying to argue that might makes right, and truly that is what Google's size amounts to, but simply trying to point out how ludicrous the request is when pertaining to Google.

This very same knowledge as to how much Google pervades all forms and levels of media could be used by Google's lawyers to argue that the Judge is unfairly persecuting Google due to it's size and philanthropic nature. That the Judge has clearly made a request to which Google is incapable of providing an accurate and timely answer to, and that due to Google's size, the only logical response is to have a closed Jury with controlled access to the outside media.

While it's not a favourable decision, it is the only way to ensure a jury will not be influenced by the media, as too is it the only way to ensure that the court officials are not influenced, and that penalties should be defined for any members of the jury or the court who knowingly access media data pertaining to the case while outside of the court-room proper.

If Google were to even keep track of everyone it paid directly or indirectly whether through an ad campaign, or through their hack-google campaign (Find a bug in chrome, report it, make money, they've already paid out millions a few-hundred to a thousand dollars at a time.) Members of universities they have donated to, charities, grants they have funded, the Google summer of code contests. The list carries on and on and on. Google gives money away like it's raining <expletive> dollar bills.

The court's order is a lot more limited than that. Specifically, Google was ordered to disclose "consultants, contractors, vendors, or employees" paid by Google who were also bloggers, etc. The order specifically excluded people paid through advertisements and people who worked for universities. The order also stated "please simply do your best but the impossible is not required." In any event, Google should be able to come up with a number greater than 0.